ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2023
Spread the Word: Enhancing Replicability of Speech Research Through Stimulus Sharing.
Article in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Collection and Analysis of Repeated Speech Samples: Methodological Framework and Example Protocol.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Conducting high-quality and reliable acoustic analysis: A tutorial focused on training research assistants.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2024Article
- Time Scales and Moments of Listening Effort Revealed in Pupillometry.Seminars in hearing · 2023Review
- Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe ongoing replication crisis within and beyond psychology has revealed the numerous ways in which flexibility in the research process can affect study outcomes. In speech research, examples of these "researcher degrees of freedom" include the particular syllables, words, or sentences presented; the talkers who produce the stimuli and the instructions given to them; the population tested; whether and how stimuli are matched on amplitude; the type of masking noise used and its presentation level; and many others. In this research note, we argue that even seemingly minor methodological choices have the potential to affect study outcomes. To that end, we present a reanalysis of six existing data sets on spoken word identification in noise to assess how differences in talkers, stimulus processing, masking type, and listeners affect identification accuracy.
conclusionsOur reanalysis revealed relatively low correlations among word identification rates across studies. The data suggest that some of the seemingly innocuous methodological details that differ across studies-details that cannot possibly be reported in text given the idiosyncrasies inherent to speech-introduce unknown variability that may affect replicability of our findings. We therefore argue that publicly sharing stimuli is a crucial step toward improved replicability in speech research. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.21985907.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.